₦airaland Forum

Gagare1:
I came across this barbaric act on one of our Hausa Unity groups; where Hausawa share any information that affects Hausa (and strictly Hausa) people, without considering religion.

The people killed were Hausa hunters returning home for Sallah celebration. Those guns are dane guns which every licensed hunter is permitted to own (even you can get one if you want). So for those trying to rationalize the brutality meted on those people by making reference to the guns, your argument is flawed.

The hunters were traveling in broad daylight, without expecting anything bad to happen, because they thought people are sensible enough to know danger when they see it. They believed that they were not a threat to anyone. They were wrong, because sense has since left certain places (Uromi in this case).

If indeed they were kidnappers, would they have submitted to the vigilante for checks? And when the guns were discovered, would they have allowed themselves to be killed without killing as many as their guns can take down?

Edo state should await the decision of the Hausa mother group. This matter will be approached and resolved completely, legally of course. We have been seeing videos of Edo people harassing Hausawa simply because they are Hausawa. Personally, I was treated unkindly by the same people of Uromi in 2020 when I was traveling to Asaba from Auchi. My crime? Being Hausa.

And please, DON'T bring Fulani Terrorists into this matter. Hausawa were killed, not Fulanis.
Don't kill Hausawa for the crimes of Fulanis in your lands. You will not be excused.

Hornfourtoonate:
I have been experiencing this serious ear pain for 3 weeks now. I must confess the pain is like twice of tooth ache. I don’t sleep at night at all. I am always crying every night. I have borrowed money for antibiotics,ear drop,pain killers and have also taken 4 injections but the pain is still there.Even after takin tramadol it only gave me a little relief. Sometimes the ear use to bring out blood and some sticky fluid.Now I am in debt and can’t afford painkiller and the pain is still severe.It has also affected my jaw and chest with pain.please what should I do to cure this problem
It is very discomforting

Asonaijaaso:
Nigeria is burning—literally. In broad daylight, human beings are being hunted, brutalized, and set ablaze on federal roads, and the government does nothing. Instead of tackling the escalating lawlessness, mob justice, and security collapse, Tinubu and his cronies are obsessed with power consolidation—silencing political opponents, removing governors, and installing loyalists who will not challenge him.

Where is the outrage? Where is the leadership? How does a so-called Commander-in-Chief allow citizens to be executed like animals while he wages proxy wars against Natasha, Fubara, Achimugu, and Emir Sanusi? When a government fails to protect its people, it has no legitimacy.

Tinubu swore an oath to keep Nigeria safe. He has failed. He removed a whole governor for oil pipelines, but when it comes to human lives, his silence is deafening. If Edo is not immediately declared a state of emergency, Tinubu will forever be remembered as the President who let Nigerians burn in the streets while playing politics with gangsters like Wike and Ganduje.

If Tinubu cannot lead with decisiveness, the Senate must begin impeachment proceedings—so he can stop his power games and start governing. The North will never forget this betrayal if action is not taken. You had the balls to do it before, Mr. President. Do it again.

Level1guy:
Germany is known for having one of the best judicial systems in the world. But beneath this reputation lies a deeply flawed system that fails to protect individuals from bias, corruption, and injustice—with no real remedies for those affected.
Here’s something shocking: In the higher courts of Germany, there is no official transcript of proceedings. No verbatim record, no written evidence of what was said. This loophole is exploited by corrupt and biased judges to manipulate justice, with zero accountability—and the system protects them.
This is a story of a severely disabled migrant in Tübingen, Germany, fighting for his right to a fair trial. He has done everything possible within the legal system, yet he has been met with obstruction, silence, and injustice at every turn.
He was convicted by a panel of judges at the Landgericht—one presiding judge and two lay judges (Schöffen) who have no legal background. In theory, these lay judges represent the public. In reality, they completely rely on the presiding judge for legal interpretation.
Here’s the problem: Judicial deliberations are entirely secret. If a biased presiding judge misapplies the law or manipulates the lay judges, it can never be discovered or corrected.
In this case, the presiding judge exploited this flaw. After deliberations, he publicly stated his reasons for the verdict. But in his legally binding written judgment, he:
• Altered witness statements
• Misrepresented key facts
• Omitted crucial testimony

One of the most shocking aspects was that the judge completely erased a key legal argument presented by the defense. The defense had cited past rulings and asked critical questions, yet in the official written judgment, this entire discussion was omitted, creating a different perspective. What the judge said in court was completely different from what he wrote down.
By distorting the facts, he crippled the defendant’s ability to challenge the verdict in the Oberlandesgericht.

In Germany, a revision is extremely limited—no witnesses are heard. The review only focuses on legal and procedural errors, not factual disputes, as every fact the presiding judge writes is termed correct. But here’s where it gets worse:
The higher courts (Landgericht) do not keep official transcripts of proceedings.
Without detailed trial records, it becomes impossible to contest manipulated facts. If a corrupt judge distorts a verdict, the defense is powerless. The system protects judges, not justice.

The defense fought to get answers. They repeatedly asked the judge to explain why he had changed the facts, or at least clarify the issue to the Oberlandesgericht. But he refused.
• Calls were made to the judge. He promised to explain; he did not.
• A Gegenvorstellung (formal objection) was filed with the court. No response.
• Judges in Germany are not legally required to clarify or justify their rulings.

Even more disturbing: The defense lawyer contacted the public prosecutor, who had been a witness to the trial and knew what was actually said in court. He admitted to the correct statements. But when asked to act, he said: "I cannot do anything."
This is like witnessing a crime and being unable to intervene.

A formal complaint was filed against the judge, but the Vice President of the Landgericht Tübingen refused to take action. He dismissed the complaint, stating that it did not fall under supervisory authority and that the actions of the judge fall under judicial independence. Does altering, misrepresenting, and omitting key witness statements fall under such law? His statements probably mean the judge was not even asked to issue a statement. Further complaints were forwarded to the president of the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart and later to the Ministry of Justice, yet nothing was done.

The defendant, a severely disabled migrant, went to the court in person to demand justice. He was told to leave. But as he was exiting the building, a security officer pushed him down the staircase because he "wasn’t moving fast enough."
He fell and hit his head on the floor.
What if he had lost his life?
This is the German justice system. A man fighting for his legal rights is physically assaulted inside a courthouse.

The Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Stuttgart, whose role includes ensuring lawful proceedings and representing the state in revision (appeal) cases, has been contacted but has chosen not to act. They have the opportunity to intervene in the public interest, especially in cases involving systemic failures.
The fact that a public prosecutor was a witness to the actual statements made in court is deeply concerning. Why don’t they ask him for clarification? Why don’t they question the two Schöffen?
Instead, they will likely support a judgment that was highly flawed and manipulated. Does that truly serve the public interest? This raises a serious question: Would a judge ever do the same against the prosecution in court? I believe we all know the answer. The fact that the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart will uphold a judgment about which there are complaints without asking the judge for clarification is highly alarming. Is that even justice?

This issue has long existed within the German judiciary, and the blame should not rest solely on the system itself. The Bar Association (Rechtsanwaltskammer) has failed defendants by not upholding their right to a fair trial. They should have played a stronger role in advocating for a fair and transparent legal system, ensuring that judicial misconduct does not go unchecked. One cannot forget the highly publicized YSL RICO trial in the United States. If this case had taken place in Germany, would the defendants have had a fair chance at justice? I leave the answer to you.

Criminal investigations should not be the primary remedy for unlawful actions, as they are unlikely to succeed. Multiple reports show German prosecutors refusing to charge police officers and judges, even with profound evidence of misconduct in court.

An Open Question to the German Judiciary, Ministries of Justice, and Decision-Makers:

When a biased or corrupt judge manipulates the facts in a Landgericht ruling, how can this be remedied to protect the individual’s rights? Since the revision process cannot address such deficiencies, what other mechanisms are in place to ensure justice and protect the rights of the individual.

Please do not say filing a constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde) to the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVerfG), as how can one even prove what was said in court without a transcript or detailed protocol? Let’s not forget the extremely low success rate of around 5%, notwithstanding the extremely high cost of hiring a specialized constitutional lawyer.

Why is there a detailed transcript or protocol in the Amtsgericht but an absence of the same at the Landgericht? Many lawyers claim that any attempt to request verbatim statements would likely be denied by the judge, leaving the lawyer at risk of antagonizing the court.

Does serving as a judge mean they are beyond reproach, with no laws in place to enforce better accountability and transparency? Judges are human beings, capable of bias or criminal intentions, and should be held to a higher standard of responsibility.

It seems the German judiciary believes that when a judge is employed, they immediately become "saintly" and "christlike," as there are no remedies to fix certain criminal behaviors.

The Basic Law of Germany is fundamentally undermined in this case.

Article 103 – Right to be Heard:
"In the course of any judicial proceedings, the parties to the case must be given an opportunity to present their case and be heard."
Was the severely disabled migrant heard in this case? Was it a fair trial? Clearly not.

Article 92 – Judiciary and Judicial Independence:
"Judges shall be independent and subject only to the law."
But if judges do not abide by the law, what can possibly protect an individual's rights?

It is important to reference a statement by former Stuttgart Regional Court judge, Frank Fahsel, who said:
"I was a judge at the Stuttgart Regional Court from 1973 to 2004, and during that time I experienced unbelievable and countless violations of the law and perversions of justice organized by the system, which could not be challenged because they conformed to the system. I have encountered countless judges and public prosecutors who could simply be called 'criminal.' Yet, they were, and in some cases still are, sacrosanct—untouchable—because they acted 'per Ordre de Mufti' (i.e., on orders from above) or were covered by the system for the sake of their reputation... It is not possible to take action against such colleagues in the justice system because the system protects itself from being exposed."

This statement corroborates the issues faced by the severely disabled migrant. For over 20 years, such unlawful actions have been observed by the noble ex-judge, Frank Fahsel, and it is tragic that even today, no effective remedy has been implemented to address these injustices.

Interview with the Defendant in the Case (Name withheld due to security reasons)


Q: What was your experience like during the trial?
A: "I was shocked. The judge ignored key evidence, and my lawyer’s arguments were completely erased from the final judgment. It felt like the verdict was already decided before the trial even started."

Q: Did you try to challenge the verdict?
A: "Yes, but there was no way to prove what was actually said in court. Without transcripts, how do you fight back? The system protects itself."

Q: How has this affected your life?
A: "I have lost trust in the justice system. I have a disability, and instead of protecting me, they pushed me down the stairs in a courthouse. I fear for others who might go through the same thing. I almost lost my life."

Q: Why did you not report the individual who pushed you down the staircase to the police?
A: "If a judge could do this to me, will you trust anyone involved in the judiciary? I know there are good individuals, but this incident creates doubt in me."

Q: Why are you speaking out? Aren’t you afraid of any repercussions?
A: "Well, I have already said I can die for the truth. Yes, it might sound extreme, but I only feel for my mother (laughs). If a judge can do this in front of my lawyer, what about those who cannot even afford legal fees? What about refugees? Migrants? He would never do this to the prosecution."

Q: What’s next for you?
A: "We are waiting for the outcome of the revision, though there is little hope because of the judge’s actions. I just hope that someone remembers the oath they swore and upholds justice."

Q: I want to tell you that you are one brave man. Your strength is exemplary, and I wish you the best.
A: "Thank you very much."

The German judiciary is destroying human rights in order to protect their reputation. The European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Council need to step in. This has been going on for far too long, and it must stop.

https://medium.com/@stanleonx/judicial-independence-or-impunity-the-dark-side-of-the-german-judiciary-98e4115f3e58

AndroBlaze:
You people forgot to mention the most important thing, the "pride of Africa", Baltasar Ebang Engonga aka "Bello", is his nephew.

There was an argument between Onyekachi Nwaebonyi, senator representing Ebonyi north, and Oby Ezekwesili, former minister of education, on Tuesday.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVlDWGXLcgQ?si=LgHDa2CPvrGR-h8z

The confrontation took place at the hearing of the senate committee on ethics, privileges, and public petitions on the fresh petition submitted by Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.

Ezekwesili joined Abiola Akiode, counsel to Akpoti-Uduaghan, and the petitioner, Zubairu Yakubu, at the senate committee hearing.

Yakubu had made efforts to speak while Neda Imaseun, the senate committee chairman, was speaking, but he was asked to put off his mic.

When Ezekwesili tried to intervene, Nwaebonyi — who appeared as a witness for Senate President Godswill Akpabio — interrupted her. She then told him to “compose himself and stop making noise”, which immediately sparked an outburst from the senator.

“You’re a fool. What do you mean? Why are you talking to me like that? I will not take it. You’re an insult to womanhood. People like you cannot be here,” Nwaebonyi replied Ezekwesili.

Ezekwesili fired back, calling him a “hooligan”, further infuriating the lawmaker.

The heated exchange disrupted the session before order was eventually restored.

Following the incident, Imaseun announced that the case was now before a court of law, leading to an abrupt end to the hearing.

jazzman7711:
Nigeria will be in the World Cup.

Relax.

Antichristian2:
Holy Spirit is Angel Gabriel in Islam. Allah sends him to His messengers to strengthen them in ways He wills. He is the head of the Angels. He has six hundred wings, each of which covers the horizon. Angels are created from light and they never disobeys Allah! They are always worshipping Allah or in his service!

MaxInDHouse:
Kobo has nothing tangible to offer you've been wasting your precious time talking to a brick, she just want to argue that's all!

Kobojunkie:
Explain to a person who blatantly rejects the word of the one he pretends is the God he worships because he values his own opinion more. 😂😂😂😂😂

I will pass!

Kobojunkie:
You reject the concluding statement made in verse 8 because of differing opinions you conveniently harbor — you lifted your ideas from an out-of-context interpretation of the text —of what was stated in verse 1 by the same YHWH.... yikes!

I bet it also does not sit well with you that Ezra, who was one of the foreigners who returned to Jerusalem approximately 400 years after that proclamation made by Isaiah, kicked all the non-descendants of Jacob out of the place insisting that only those who were of the blood of Jacob could approach and marriage in the land had to be according to the stipulations of the Law.

Kobojunkie:
Even though it is clearly indicated in Deuteronomy that the foreigners who will return from all the other nations are in fact descendants of Jacob --- His bloodline --+ who rather than being attached to the nation that is Israel are instead attached to other nations -+ citizens of other countries, you earlier went on to claim that these people were in fact dogs -- not of the bloodline of Jacob. And my question which followed that clearly instructed you to provide evidence of where God of Israel --YHWH-- insisted that non-Jacobites - where to show up in his temple to worship Him. But here I see you are not able to provide that information and have instead resorted to the same rigmarole tactics you used before. To what end?

You quoted Isaiah 56 vs 6-7 but conveniently ignored the rest of the passage explaining "the who" of the foreigners mentioned.
Examples of foreigners who returned back to the Temple in Jerusalem — not to Samaria since Isaiah served as Prophet of God in the nation of Israel and not in Judah —from foreign nations approximately 400 years after Isaiah made this proclamation include Ezra, Nehemiah( a Eunuch), and the many others who were born in exile but returned back to Jerusalem to rebuild the city and worship the God of their ancestors.

Kobojunkie:
You finally realized and gave up on the lie, I see! I was beginning to wonder how much lower you were going to go with that nonsense.

Let's look at this from another equally valid angle. Solomon built that structure to the specification of YHWH. So, if indeed Solomon meant those whom Jesus Christ of Israel referred to as dogs could enter into the Holy of the temple to worship Him then there must be a record of Him — YHWH — giving this permission. Where in the Law of Moses is it written that YHWH— God of Israel— gave permission to those who are not of the blood of Jacob — the dogs — to show up in His tabernacle(or the temple in Jerusalem) to worship Him?

Kobojunkie:
This pathetic submission of yours is exactly the kind of regurgitation from a 2-brain-cell being. Are you sure you are OK at all?

Kobojunkie:
See a lame attempt at switching the focus. 😂😂😂😂

2. Even Boko Haram has agencies within its organization to handle disputes among its members. Does that then make Boko Haram a sovereign nation?

Again, where is the evidence of this statement of yours? Where is the proof that the Israelites had territory to defend back when they were merely roaming through the deserts?

Kobojunkie:
Again, where is the evidence of this statement of yours? Where is the proof that the Israelites had territory to defend back when they were merely roaming through the deserts?

Boko Haram has laws that its members probably live by. Is Boko Haram a sovereign nation?

Kobojunkie:
Where is the evidence of this statement of yours? Where is the proof that the Israelites had territory to defend back when they were merely roaming through the deserts? 😏😏😏😏

Kobojunkie:
From what I have read, the people existed however the nation itself came after the law had been ratified — Deuteronomy 32 —and those who were intended to be a part of the agreement had possessed the land.

Kobojunkie:
1. What in the world is this for now? The original Nation of Israel began as a nation without a formal(human) king hence it was not a Kingdom. The monarchy was requested and arrived with the announcement of Saul as the first king of Israel.

2.

Kobojunkie:
1. A country without a land border of its very own? Interesting assertion!
2.

Kobojunkie:
Did this United Kingdom of Israel — the people had not even reached the land of Canaan which was their promised land/nation at the time in question and the Law was to be ratified much later on — officially exist at the time that YHWH — God of Israel — gave the prophecy in Deuteronomy 28 -30?

Kobojunkie:
You have never read the Book of the Law of Moses have you where YHWH — God of Israel, have you? You have never read of YHWH's curses which were eventually carried out against both the Nations of Israel

Read the books of the Laws and you might just realize that Solomon merely restated the information that YHWH — God of Israel — had previously stated in His Law of Moses to the people of Israel, information that was to take place. And it did no thanks to the antics of the same Solomon.
Continued in Deuteronomy 29 -30.

meobizy:
A mongrel is going to type something which'll expose that Sango Ota still remains in the 12th century.

Kobojunkie:
1. That fact that Samaria was the capital city of the nation of Israel that was created after the death of Solomon(a fact I pointed out in a previous post to you... ...— DOES NOT give meaning to the expression the 10 Northern Tribes of Samaria which you included in your last post, in the same way, that the expression Jerusalem tribes of the Southern nation would also have no real meaning.

2. You seem to be having a terrible time comprehending the statements relayed to you so far. Jesus Christ of Israel indeed never referred to the Gentiles as dogs because the Gentiles are not the dogs. Gentiles are Israelites whereas dogs are non-Israelites. This is the basis of this entire argument but you remain confused for reasons unknown to me. If you have yet to grasp this simple fact, then I wonder what in the world your arguing has all this while been for.

Kobojunkie:
1. Jesus Christ of Israel referred to non-Israelites as dogs and warned that they had absolutely no capacity to handle that which is Holy(of YHWH, God of Israel). Your religion as well as that of the Muslims was established by the dogs, so it is no wonder that your ideas regarding even that plainly contained in the book cannot be reasonably of YHWH.

2. Northern tribes of Samaria, ke?

3. The clue you seek is contained in the passage which tells you that the man had gone to Jerusalem to worship... meaning the man must have been an Israelite. Israelites(of the 12 tribes)— both exiled and none— were the only ones who went to Jerusalem and were allowed into the Temple to worship.

Kobojunkie:
I am not into deciphering Scriptures. Rather, I try to help you realize the original message intended by the authors.

Here are some facts to help you comprehend the message in that passage, not just that verse you lifted there.
⚉ In 1 Kings 12, we learn that the original nation of Israel was later on divided into two different nations by YHWH— God of Israel— with 10 of the 12 tribes of former Israel forming the main of Israel while the nation of Judah was formed by the leftover tribes— Judah & Benjamin. The capital city of the created Israel was Samaria while that of Judah was Jerusalem.
⚉ In 1 Kings 12 vs 31, because Jeroboam, King of the new Israel did not honor God's agreement, the tribe of Levi eventually moved to their sister nation of Judah— the nation is the nation known in Scripture as the Jewish nation.
⚉ The nation of Isreal was later destroyed by YHWH — God of Israel —, the people sent into exile rendering them Gentiles(they no longer lived in their homeland). This took place around 720 BC as prophesied by Prophet Isaiah, Amos, etc.
⚉ By the time that Jesus Christ of Isreal was born into the nation of Judah — a Jew of the Jewish nation called Judah— the population of Judah boasted of persons from the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Levi, and also Samaritans(exiles from the nation of Israel i.e. some from the other 9 tribes of Israel).

---

Paul was a Benjamite, while Barnabas was a Levite, both of them citizens of the Jewish nation of Judah. When Paul and Barnabas told you they would then turn their preaching to the Gentiles, what they meant was that they would go to the people of the other 9 tribes of Israel — also of the family of Isreal.

Kobojunkie:
But this prophecy does not concern you, a Nigeria, with no blood ties or relations with the people it was given to?
You are not one of the people or the "us" referred to in the passage, so why do you care? Why not equally busy yourself quoting the prophecies given by the priestesses of Delphi and other deities as though they pertain to you?

Antichristian2:
Isaiah 45:7: This verse states that God "forms light and creates darkness, I make peace and create evil." This passage suggests that God can use both good and evil for His purposes.

Job 1-2: This book explores the concept of God's sovereignty and permission. It depicts Satan seeking permission from God to test Job's faith. While God allows suffering and hardship, He ultimately remains in control. I can't imagine how Job's family and properties were destroyed by God's permission in a test.


Did i say you said that? You should point out any thing that looks false here cos i know when the response gets into you you start crying "Taqqiya script". They rejected Jesus just as they've been doing before with other Prophets sent to them!

Kobojunkie:
The Trinity delusion, along with every other god-delusion you carry, has nothing to do with Israelite Scripture. It is a construct that is wholly of religion, particularly the religion founded by those whom Jesus Christ of Israel referred to as dogs — non-Israelites — whom He warned were incapable of handling that which is holy.